2002 Congressional Elections and the H-1B visa
Oct 21st 2002, 8:12 pm
#91
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2002 Congressional Elections and the H-1B visa
> wrote in message
> news:e6l8ruc293f7rrdhioabe4-
> [email protected] ...
>> I don't think anyone has a problem with companies hiring who they
>> want. I have issues with companies that lie to Congress to say there's
>> a labor shortage when there is not. Then Congress allows more H1-B to
>> come in while Americans get layed off. Do you see the problem with
>> that?
"Carlos Antunes" wrote:
>Your concern is a valid one. It happens everytime politicians are involved
>to solve economic problems. My solution would be to abolish the H1-B program
>and allow more immigrants outright, as long as these are law-abiding people.
>This way, the Government gets out of the loop except to guarantee the safety
>of all Americans.
Yeah, that would be great if we already weren't so full of people and
if we knew beforehand that people would be law-abiding. With all due
respect, I don't know about you but my entire life I went through the
education system here in the U.S., went to college, had 1.5 children
, joined the military, etc. I was raised by my parents and the
school system in preparation for the workplace. I did everything I was
"supposed" to do. Then I can't get a job for weeks or months at a time
because foreigners have the jobs. It's not jealousy, sour grapes, or
just plain meanness. It's a cultural thing. We assimilated into
American culture and then get stabbed in the back by corporations and
our elected officials.
Oh, well.
> news:e6l8ruc293f7rrdhioabe4-
> [email protected] ...
>> I don't think anyone has a problem with companies hiring who they
>> want. I have issues with companies that lie to Congress to say there's
>> a labor shortage when there is not. Then Congress allows more H1-B to
>> come in while Americans get layed off. Do you see the problem with
>> that?
"Carlos Antunes" wrote:
>Your concern is a valid one. It happens everytime politicians are involved
>to solve economic problems. My solution would be to abolish the H1-B program
>and allow more immigrants outright, as long as these are law-abiding people.
>This way, the Government gets out of the loop except to guarantee the safety
>of all Americans.
Yeah, that would be great if we already weren't so full of people and
if we knew beforehand that people would be law-abiding. With all due
respect, I don't know about you but my entire life I went through the
education system here in the U.S., went to college, had 1.5 children
, joined the military, etc. I was raised by my parents and theschool system in preparation for the workplace. I did everything I was
"supposed" to do. Then I can't get a job for weeks or months at a time
because foreigners have the jobs. It's not jealousy, sour grapes, or
just plain meanness. It's a cultural thing. We assimilated into
American culture and then get stabbed in the back by corporations and
our elected officials.
Oh, well.
Oct 21st 2002, 8:25 pm
#92
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2002 Congressional Elections and the H-1B visa
I don't think you dispute the idea that most legal immigrants are
law-abiding. The INS is supposed to perform background checks on every
person wishing to immigrate here. Note that temporary workers
(non-immigrants) don't go through all this checking.
I have trouble understanding the "full of people already" argument. Relative
to what? In any case, I don't think politicians should limit who
corporations may hire. Politicians usually have too much power but not
enough brains.
By the way, corporations are supposed to always do what is best for them.
That's why they exist. I also have trouble understanding your "stabbed in
the back by corporations". Unless the corporations promised you something,
they really owe you nothing.
Regarding being "stabbed in the back" by politicians, what were you
expecting?
wrote in message
news:3tm8ruk1vk7gcp3u3mdicn3-
[email protected]...
> Yeah, that would be great if we already weren't so full of people and
> if we knew beforehand that people would be law-abiding. With all due
> respect, I don't know about you but my entire life I went through the
> education system here in the U.S., went to college, had 1.5 children
> , joined the military, etc. I was raised by my parents and the
> school system in preparation for the workplace. I did everything I was
> "supposed" to do. Then I can't get a job for weeks or months at a time
> because foreigners have the jobs. It's not jealousy, sour grapes, or
> just plain meanness. It's a cultural thing. We assimilated into
> American culture and then get stabbed in the back by corporations and
> our elected officials.
law-abiding. The INS is supposed to perform background checks on every
person wishing to immigrate here. Note that temporary workers
(non-immigrants) don't go through all this checking.
I have trouble understanding the "full of people already" argument. Relative
to what? In any case, I don't think politicians should limit who
corporations may hire. Politicians usually have too much power but not
enough brains.
By the way, corporations are supposed to always do what is best for them.
That's why they exist. I also have trouble understanding your "stabbed in
the back by corporations". Unless the corporations promised you something,
they really owe you nothing.
Regarding being "stabbed in the back" by politicians, what were you
expecting?
wrote in message
news:3tm8ruk1vk7gcp3u3mdicn3-
[email protected]...
> Yeah, that would be great if we already weren't so full of people and
> if we knew beforehand that people would be law-abiding. With all due
> respect, I don't know about you but my entire life I went through the
> education system here in the U.S., went to college, had 1.5 children
>
, joined the military, etc. I was raised by my parents and the> school system in preparation for the workplace. I did everything I was
> "supposed" to do. Then I can't get a job for weeks or months at a time
> because foreigners have the jobs. It's not jealousy, sour grapes, or
> just plain meanness. It's a cultural thing. We assimilated into
> American culture and then get stabbed in the back by corporations and
> our elected officials.
Oct 22nd 2002, 5:02 am
#93
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Alexy Yielding is some sort of moron!!
On Mon, 21 Oct 2002 04:47:15 -0700, Tim Keating wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Oct 2002 01:59:43 -0400, alexy
> wrote:
> Alex,
> Tell us this, why in the world an administrative procedure, (processing
> time), be allowed to subvert the intent of any law.
Don't forget that an administrative procedure is responsible for H-1B in
the first place: getting an employment-based Green Card takes several
years, usually two or three, sometimes up to six.
If it wasn't for this processing time undermining the Green Card process,
there would BE no H-1B applicants.
There are many other examples.
> According to Alex's dumb little theory, increasing the I-129
> processing time from the current 1 to 6 months* to 12 months should cut
> off the H1-B program in it's entirety!!!
> You have got a lot to learn about our government..
> Until then.. I suggest you stop trolling..
> *-- INS processes form I-129 submissions at different four processing
> centers.
Actually, when the quota was an issue (it hasn't been in the last two
years), INS actually synchronized their I-129 processing. They ordered the
faster service centers to halt processing until the slower ones caught up.
> On Mon, 21 Oct 2002 01:59:43 -0400, alexy
> wrote:
> Alex,
> Tell us this, why in the world an administrative procedure, (processing
> time), be allowed to subvert the intent of any law.
Don't forget that an administrative procedure is responsible for H-1B in
the first place: getting an employment-based Green Card takes several
years, usually two or three, sometimes up to six.
If it wasn't for this processing time undermining the Green Card process,
there would BE no H-1B applicants.
There are many other examples.
> According to Alex's dumb little theory, increasing the I-129
> processing time from the current 1 to 6 months* to 12 months should cut
> off the H1-B program in it's entirety!!!
> You have got a lot to learn about our government..
> Until then.. I suggest you stop trolling..
> *-- INS processes form I-129 submissions at different four processing
> centers.
Actually, when the quota was an issue (it hasn't been in the last two
years), INS actually synchronized their I-129 processing. They ordered the
faster service centers to halt processing until the slower ones caught up.
Oct 22nd 2002, 5:09 am
#94
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2002 Congressional Elections and the H-1B visa
On Mon, 21 Oct 2002 05:20:53 -0700, Tim Keating wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Oct 2002 11:36:46 GMT, Ingo Pakleppa
> wrote:
>>On Sun, 20 Oct 2002 05:52:56 -0700, Tim Keating wrote:
>>> On Sun, 20 Oct 2002 06:56:35 GMT, Ingo Pakleppa
>>> wrote:
>>>>On Sat, 19 Oct 2002 20:09:10 -0700, Tim Keating wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 20 Oct 2002 01:32:29 GMT, Ingo Pakleppa
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>The annual quota on H-1Bs has been between 65,000 and 115,000 per
>>>>>>>>year since the quota was imposed in the early 1990s (the quota was
>>>>>>>>195,000 for
>>>>>>> The H1-B program didn't exist before the 1990's.. Prior to 1991 it
>>>>>>> was known as H-1... and required a minimum salary of 60K/yr.
>>>>>>Actually, the H-1 program was split at the time into H-1A (nurses)
>>>>>>and H-1B (everybody else who used to qualify for an H-1). So is your
>>>>>>argument that we should undo this and reintroduce the H-1 as it
>>>>>>existed from the 1950s to 1991?
>>>>>>There never was a general minimum salary for H-1s or for H-1Bs. In
>>>>>>the contrary, initially the H-1 program didn't specify anything
>>>>>>about wages at all. Today, H-1Bs must be paid at least the
>>>>>>prevailing wage. How much that is depends on both the specific job
>>>>>>and the city.
>>>>> Come to think about it.. 60K$/yr was the minimum to get around a
>>>>> bunch of administrative hurdles. Otherwise you had to prove you
>>>>> advertised the position, etc.. plus Lots of other hurdles..
>>>>Actually, this $60k/year limit is a brand-new thing, and IIRC, it
>>>>actually didn't even go into effect because INS didn't issue
>>>>regulations about it.
>>>>>>>>2002), only about half the quota was used. Since H-1Bs generally
>>>>>>>> cannot
>>>>>>> That remains to be seen as publish figures aren't out yet.. and
>>>>>>> The uncounted categories number as much as the capped/counted
>>>>>>> categories.
>>>>>>If you count transfers, you are right. Those are people who have
>>>>>>already been counted against the quota. Counting them again would be
>>>>>>like counting how many guests a bar has by how many bottles of beer
>>>>>>they sell and ignoring that many guests order two or three: it would
>>>>>>artificially inflate the numbers.
>>>>> I wouldn't count on your theory.
>>>>> Starting in FY 01, transfers where no longer charged application
>>>>> fees.
>>>>INS fees for H-1Bs are (according to
>>>>http://www.ins-
>>>>.usdoj.gov/graphics/formsfee/forms/index.htm as of
>>>>today, 10/19/2002):
>>>>$130 application fee (form I-129); everybody must pay it $1000
>>>>training fee (form I-129). This must be paid for the first H-1B an
>>>>employer files for a person, and for the first renewal. Most
>>>>importantly, if the beneficiary changes jobs, the new employer must
>>>>again pay that fee. The training fee is waived for certain non-profits
>>>>and educational institutions.
>>> As I recall their are some additional visa surcharges in the ~85$
>>> range.
>>> Add in the I-94 form $6.
>>Yes, that's right. These are visa and inspection fees and apply to
>>anybody who wants to get a US visa, whether it's a tourist visa or an
>>H-1B.
>>The visa fee actually is $65 (to be raise to $100), plus a reciprocity
>>fee. The reciprocity fee depends on the nationality of the applicant and
>>is designed to be the same as what his country charges US citizens for a
>>comparable visa.
>>The I-94 fee actually is $7 if you cross by a land border. If you fly
>>into the US, the fee is built into the airfare; in this case, everybody,
>>including US citizens, pay it.
>>>>$1000 premium processing fee (form I-907). This is optional. Paying
>>>>this fee guarantees a decision within three weeks. If you choose not
>>>>to pay it, then you have to wait with the "huddled masses," often two
>>>>to four months.
>>>>I think what you may be thinking of is the premium processing fee.
>>>>This is not required by anybody. Typically, employers will pay it for
>>>>the first H-1B to get the person hired quickly. For an extension or
>>>>transfer, there is plenty of time, so there is no need to pay this
>>>>fee. It is a bit confusing that the training fee and the premium fee
>>>>just happen to be the same amount, but they are completely separate.
>>>>>>>>This year was indeed special. In addition to the regular quota,
>>>>>>>>those slots that had gone unclaimed in previous years because of
>>>>>>>>INS processing delays were added. But, again, those slots were
>>>>>>>>mostly unused because there just wasn't enough demand for them.
>>>>>>>>They were carried over to 2002 (where they again went unused, and
>>>>>>>>will now be carried to 2003, etc.)
>>>>>>>>> FY 2002, 159,000*4/3 = 212,000? (Year end projection)
>>>>>>>>What is this 4/3? FY 2002 is over already, and the latest numbers
>>>>>>>>I have (from around June, three quarters into the fiscal year)
>>>>>>>>indicate that there were well less than 100,000 H-1Bs requested.
>>>>>>> Time lag.. The Fed's are real slow.. we'll be lucky to see Q4
>>>>>>> numbers before Dec..
>>>>>>Still, where does the number come from?
>>>>> First three quarters of applications, projected to end of year..
>>>>> I.E. 9months *4/3 == (Year end projection)..
>>>>According to
>>>>http://www.ins.usdoj.gov/graphics/publicaffairs/newsrels/02.08FYH-1BPr-
>>>>ocessing.htm ,
>>>>by June 30 (75% of the fiscal year 2002), there were 60,500 H-1Bs,
>>>>plus another 18,000 pending.
>>>>The 159,000 include extensions and transfers - that is, it includes
>>>>people who were already in the US as H-1Bs.
>>> Meanwhile the number of visa's approved without any fee exemptions.
>>> htt-
>>> p://www.ins.gov/graphics/services/employerinfo/H1B_3rdQFY01Rpt.pdf
>>> As a representative sample..
>>> You will notice extensions very small number. 6,489 for 1st ninie(9)
>>> months of FY 2001.
>>The report clearly says that this applies only to SECOND extensions. The
> There are no Second extensions.
> Initial term Three(3) years, extension term(3) years.. max time
> limit on H1-B visa six(6) years..
That's typically true, and is the reason that there are so few second
extensions.
Second extensions would be used in a scenario where somebody first comes
for a one-year assignment, which is then extended by three years (the
maximum allowed at that time), and extended a second time for the full six
years.
>>first extension does cost the fee. The number is so small because
>>usually, people will get an H-1B for three years, and then either
>>already have their Green Card, or extend it once for the full six years.
>>The seventh-year extension is rarely needed.
> Automatic seventh year extension is not filed under form I-129.
> (GC application).
These extensions aren't automatic; you still have to apply for it, and of
course you would still use form I-129 for that. A Green Card application
is something completely separate (although it is a prerequisite for filing
the seventh-year extension).
>>> Same goes goes for transfers.. 4,731 admended petitions without
>>> extension for 1st nine(9) months of FY 2001.
>>What does an amended petition have to do with a transfer? An amended
>>petition is required if, for instance, an H-1B goes from part-time to
>>full-time, or vice versa.
> It also includes changing jobs..
It includes changing job descriptions, but not transfers. When you
transfer to a new employer, these are considered new petitions. Also, when
transferring to a new employer, the new employer will request the full
three years, while the number you gave is for amended petitions *without
extension* (that is, with the same expiration date as the original one).
> On Mon, 21 Oct 2002 11:36:46 GMT, Ingo Pakleppa
> wrote:
>>On Sun, 20 Oct 2002 05:52:56 -0700, Tim Keating wrote:
>>> On Sun, 20 Oct 2002 06:56:35 GMT, Ingo Pakleppa
>>> wrote:
>>>>On Sat, 19 Oct 2002 20:09:10 -0700, Tim Keating wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 20 Oct 2002 01:32:29 GMT, Ingo Pakleppa
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>The annual quota on H-1Bs has been between 65,000 and 115,000 per
>>>>>>>>year since the quota was imposed in the early 1990s (the quota was
>>>>>>>>195,000 for
>>>>>>> The H1-B program didn't exist before the 1990's.. Prior to 1991 it
>>>>>>> was known as H-1... and required a minimum salary of 60K/yr.
>>>>>>Actually, the H-1 program was split at the time into H-1A (nurses)
>>>>>>and H-1B (everybody else who used to qualify for an H-1). So is your
>>>>>>argument that we should undo this and reintroduce the H-1 as it
>>>>>>existed from the 1950s to 1991?
>>>>>>There never was a general minimum salary for H-1s or for H-1Bs. In
>>>>>>the contrary, initially the H-1 program didn't specify anything
>>>>>>about wages at all. Today, H-1Bs must be paid at least the
>>>>>>prevailing wage. How much that is depends on both the specific job
>>>>>>and the city.
>>>>> Come to think about it.. 60K$/yr was the minimum to get around a
>>>>> bunch of administrative hurdles. Otherwise you had to prove you
>>>>> advertised the position, etc.. plus Lots of other hurdles..
>>>>Actually, this $60k/year limit is a brand-new thing, and IIRC, it
>>>>actually didn't even go into effect because INS didn't issue
>>>>regulations about it.
>>>>>>>>2002), only about half the quota was used. Since H-1Bs generally
>>>>>>>> cannot
>>>>>>> That remains to be seen as publish figures aren't out yet.. and
>>>>>>> The uncounted categories number as much as the capped/counted
>>>>>>> categories.
>>>>>>If you count transfers, you are right. Those are people who have
>>>>>>already been counted against the quota. Counting them again would be
>>>>>>like counting how many guests a bar has by how many bottles of beer
>>>>>>they sell and ignoring that many guests order two or three: it would
>>>>>>artificially inflate the numbers.
>>>>> I wouldn't count on your theory.
>>>>> Starting in FY 01, transfers where no longer charged application
>>>>> fees.
>>>>INS fees for H-1Bs are (according to
>>>>http://www.ins-
>>>>.usdoj.gov/graphics/formsfee/forms/index.htm as of
>>>>today, 10/19/2002):
>>>>$130 application fee (form I-129); everybody must pay it $1000
>>>>training fee (form I-129). This must be paid for the first H-1B an
>>>>employer files for a person, and for the first renewal. Most
>>>>importantly, if the beneficiary changes jobs, the new employer must
>>>>again pay that fee. The training fee is waived for certain non-profits
>>>>and educational institutions.
>>> As I recall their are some additional visa surcharges in the ~85$
>>> range.
>>> Add in the I-94 form $6.
>>Yes, that's right. These are visa and inspection fees and apply to
>>anybody who wants to get a US visa, whether it's a tourist visa or an
>>H-1B.
>>The visa fee actually is $65 (to be raise to $100), plus a reciprocity
>>fee. The reciprocity fee depends on the nationality of the applicant and
>>is designed to be the same as what his country charges US citizens for a
>>comparable visa.
>>The I-94 fee actually is $7 if you cross by a land border. If you fly
>>into the US, the fee is built into the airfare; in this case, everybody,
>>including US citizens, pay it.
>>>>$1000 premium processing fee (form I-907). This is optional. Paying
>>>>this fee guarantees a decision within three weeks. If you choose not
>>>>to pay it, then you have to wait with the "huddled masses," often two
>>>>to four months.
>>>>I think what you may be thinking of is the premium processing fee.
>>>>This is not required by anybody. Typically, employers will pay it for
>>>>the first H-1B to get the person hired quickly. For an extension or
>>>>transfer, there is plenty of time, so there is no need to pay this
>>>>fee. It is a bit confusing that the training fee and the premium fee
>>>>just happen to be the same amount, but they are completely separate.
>>>>>>>>This year was indeed special. In addition to the regular quota,
>>>>>>>>those slots that had gone unclaimed in previous years because of
>>>>>>>>INS processing delays were added. But, again, those slots were
>>>>>>>>mostly unused because there just wasn't enough demand for them.
>>>>>>>>They were carried over to 2002 (where they again went unused, and
>>>>>>>>will now be carried to 2003, etc.)
>>>>>>>>> FY 2002, 159,000*4/3 = 212,000? (Year end projection)
>>>>>>>>What is this 4/3? FY 2002 is over already, and the latest numbers
>>>>>>>>I have (from around June, three quarters into the fiscal year)
>>>>>>>>indicate that there were well less than 100,000 H-1Bs requested.
>>>>>>> Time lag.. The Fed's are real slow.. we'll be lucky to see Q4
>>>>>>> numbers before Dec..
>>>>>>Still, where does the number come from?
>>>>> First three quarters of applications, projected to end of year..
>>>>> I.E. 9months *4/3 == (Year end projection)..
>>>>According to
>>>>http://www.ins.usdoj.gov/graphics/publicaffairs/newsrels/02.08FYH-1BPr-
>>>>ocessing.htm ,
>>>>by June 30 (75% of the fiscal year 2002), there were 60,500 H-1Bs,
>>>>plus another 18,000 pending.
>>>>The 159,000 include extensions and transfers - that is, it includes
>>>>people who were already in the US as H-1Bs.
>>> Meanwhile the number of visa's approved without any fee exemptions.
>>> htt-
>>> p://www.ins.gov/graphics/services/employerinfo/H1B_3rdQFY01Rpt.pdf
>>> As a representative sample..
>>> You will notice extensions very small number. 6,489 for 1st ninie(9)
>>> months of FY 2001.
>>The report clearly says that this applies only to SECOND extensions. The
> There are no Second extensions.
> Initial term Three(3) years, extension term(3) years.. max time
> limit on H1-B visa six(6) years..
That's typically true, and is the reason that there are so few second
extensions.
Second extensions would be used in a scenario where somebody first comes
for a one-year assignment, which is then extended by three years (the
maximum allowed at that time), and extended a second time for the full six
years.
>>first extension does cost the fee. The number is so small because
>>usually, people will get an H-1B for three years, and then either
>>already have their Green Card, or extend it once for the full six years.
>>The seventh-year extension is rarely needed.
> Automatic seventh year extension is not filed under form I-129.
> (GC application).
These extensions aren't automatic; you still have to apply for it, and of
course you would still use form I-129 for that. A Green Card application
is something completely separate (although it is a prerequisite for filing
the seventh-year extension).
>>> Same goes goes for transfers.. 4,731 admended petitions without
>>> extension for 1st nine(9) months of FY 2001.
>>What does an amended petition have to do with a transfer? An amended
>>petition is required if, for instance, an H-1B goes from part-time to
>>full-time, or vice versa.
> It also includes changing jobs..
It includes changing job descriptions, but not transfers. When you
transfer to a new employer, these are considered new petitions. Also, when
transferring to a new employer, the new employer will request the full
three years, while the number you gave is for amended petitions *without
extension* (that is, with the same expiration date as the original one).
Oct 22nd 2002, 5:21 am
#95
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2002 Congressional Elections and the H-1B visa
On Mon, 21 Oct 2002 06:23:25 -0700, Tim Keating wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Oct 2002 08:48:51 -0400, alexy
> wrote:
>>Tim Keating wrote:
>>>On Mon, 21 Oct 2002 11:36:46 GMT, Ingo Pakleppa
>>>wrote:
>>>>On Sun, 20 Oct 2002 05:52:56 -0700, Tim Keating wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 20 Oct 2002 06:56:35 GMT, Ingo Pakleppa
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>On Sat, 19 Oct 2002 20:09:10 -0700, Tim Keating wrote:
>>>>>>by June 30 (75% of the fiscal year 2002), there were 60,500 H-1Bs,
>>>>>>plus another 18,000 pending.
>>>>>>The 159,000 include extensions and transfers - that is, it includes
>>>>>>people who were already in the US as H-1Bs.
>>>>> Meanwhile the number of visa's approved without any fee exemptions.
>>>>> h-
>>>>> ttp://www.ins.gov/graphics/services/employerinfo/H1B_3rdQFY01Rpt.pdf
>>>>> As a representative sample..
>>>>> You will notice extensions very small number. 6,489 for 1st ninie(9)
>>>>> months of FY 2001.
>>>>The report clearly says that this applies only to SECOND extensions.
>>>>The
>>>There are no Second extensions.
>>My, you are on a roll! According to the INS report you cited:
>>"Additionally, the INS does not require the fee for certain
>>administrative reasons. To summarize, these exemptions apply to
>>employers that are:
>>• institutions of higher education defined in section 101(a) of the
>>Higher Education Act of
>>1965;
>>• non-profit organizations or entities related to or affiliated with an
>>institution of higher
>>education as defined in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of
>>1965;
>>• non-profit and Government research organizations; ****************Note
>>this one************************* • filing a second or subsequent
>>request for an extension of stay for a particular alien;
>>************************************************ ****** • filing an
>>amended petition without a request to extend the nonimmigrant stay of
>>the alien
>>beneficiary;
>>• filing a petition to correct an INS error; • primary or secondary
>>education institutions; or • non-profit entities engaging in established
>>curriculum-related clinical training of students registered at any such
>>institution.
>>And from the same document, a table showing exemptions by quarter and by
>>nature of exemption, we have this line:
>>Employer is filing a second (or
>>higher) extension of stay for an
>>H-1B nonimmigrant 1,806 2,037 2,646 6,489
>>I believe the fourth number here, which is for the first nine months of
>>FY01, is the same as the number you were trying to pawn off on the
>>unsuspecting as the total number of extensions for that period.
> Since we've found out that a SINGLE I-129 application can be used to
> bring in MULTIPLE H1-B workers for same position/title/pay. And the
> fact, that the approved LCA database has an average of 4 jobs (same
> position/title/pay) per LCA.. One should assume the actual imported
> head counts would significantly exceed the number of I-129 forms
> processed.
That's not true. Each H-1B worker requires a separate I-129. See 8 CFR
214.2(h)(2)(ii).
Form I-129 is actually used for quite a few classifications: H-1B, H-1C,
H-2A, H-2B, H-3, L-1A, L-1B, O, P, and I believe also R. That means that
only a fraction of all I-129s are actually for H-1Bs.
You are probably referring to using the I-129 for H-1C, H-2A, H-2B and
H-3, but not H-1B. In that case, the I-129 can indeed cover multiple
workers. Read the instructions for I-129.
> On Mon, 21 Oct 2002 08:48:51 -0400, alexy
> wrote:
>>Tim Keating wrote:
>>>On Mon, 21 Oct 2002 11:36:46 GMT, Ingo Pakleppa
>>>wrote:
>>>>On Sun, 20 Oct 2002 05:52:56 -0700, Tim Keating wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 20 Oct 2002 06:56:35 GMT, Ingo Pakleppa
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>On Sat, 19 Oct 2002 20:09:10 -0700, Tim Keating wrote:
>>>>>>by June 30 (75% of the fiscal year 2002), there were 60,500 H-1Bs,
>>>>>>plus another 18,000 pending.
>>>>>>The 159,000 include extensions and transfers - that is, it includes
>>>>>>people who were already in the US as H-1Bs.
>>>>> Meanwhile the number of visa's approved without any fee exemptions.
>>>>> h-
>>>>> ttp://www.ins.gov/graphics/services/employerinfo/H1B_3rdQFY01Rpt.pdf
>>>>> As a representative sample..
>>>>> You will notice extensions very small number. 6,489 for 1st ninie(9)
>>>>> months of FY 2001.
>>>>The report clearly says that this applies only to SECOND extensions.
>>>>The
>>>There are no Second extensions.
>>My, you are on a roll! According to the INS report you cited:
>>"Additionally, the INS does not require the fee for certain
>>administrative reasons. To summarize, these exemptions apply to
>>employers that are:
>>• institutions of higher education defined in section 101(a) of the
>>Higher Education Act of
>>1965;
>>• non-profit organizations or entities related to or affiliated with an
>>institution of higher
>>education as defined in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of
>>1965;
>>• non-profit and Government research organizations; ****************Note
>>this one************************* • filing a second or subsequent
>>request for an extension of stay for a particular alien;
>>************************************************ ****** • filing an
>>amended petition without a request to extend the nonimmigrant stay of
>>the alien
>>beneficiary;
>>• filing a petition to correct an INS error; • primary or secondary
>>education institutions; or • non-profit entities engaging in established
>>curriculum-related clinical training of students registered at any such
>>institution.
>>And from the same document, a table showing exemptions by quarter and by
>>nature of exemption, we have this line:
>>Employer is filing a second (or
>>higher) extension of stay for an
>>H-1B nonimmigrant 1,806 2,037 2,646 6,489
>>I believe the fourth number here, which is for the first nine months of
>>FY01, is the same as the number you were trying to pawn off on the
>>unsuspecting as the total number of extensions for that period.
> Since we've found out that a SINGLE I-129 application can be used to
> bring in MULTIPLE H1-B workers for same position/title/pay. And the
> fact, that the approved LCA database has an average of 4 jobs (same
> position/title/pay) per LCA.. One should assume the actual imported
> head counts would significantly exceed the number of I-129 forms
> processed.
That's not true. Each H-1B worker requires a separate I-129. See 8 CFR
214.2(h)(2)(ii).
Form I-129 is actually used for quite a few classifications: H-1B, H-1C,
H-2A, H-2B, H-3, L-1A, L-1B, O, P, and I believe also R. That means that
only a fraction of all I-129s are actually for H-1Bs.
You are probably referring to using the I-129 for H-1C, H-2A, H-2B and
H-3, but not H-1B. In that case, the I-129 can indeed cover multiple
workers. Read the instructions for I-129.
Oct 22nd 2002, 5:24 am
#96
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2002 Congressional Elections and the H-1B visa
On Mon, 21 Oct 2002 05:12:35 -0700, Tim Keating wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Oct 2002 11:41:08 GMT, Ingo Pakleppa
> wrote:
>>On Sun, 20 Oct 2002 05:58:42 -0700, Tim Keating wrote:
>>Given that, as you just said, non-profits and schools qualified first in
>>FY01, that should hardly be surprising!
> No.. they were qualified before SB 2045, except they had to pay the
> $500 retraining fee and be subject to the cap..
Thanks for making my point. Before SB 2045, non-profits were treated just
like any other employer and wouldn't even be broken out in any
statistics. So it's not surprising that this category went from 0% to
17%.
> On Mon, 21 Oct 2002 11:41:08 GMT, Ingo Pakleppa
> wrote:
>>On Sun, 20 Oct 2002 05:58:42 -0700, Tim Keating wrote:
>>Given that, as you just said, non-profits and schools qualified first in
>>FY01, that should hardly be surprising!
> No.. they were qualified before SB 2045, except they had to pay the
> $500 retraining fee and be subject to the cap..
Thanks for making my point. Before SB 2045, non-profits were treated just
like any other employer and wouldn't even be broken out in any
statistics. So it's not surprising that this category went from 0% to
17%.
Oct 22nd 2002, 1:07 pm
#97
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2002 Congressional Elections and the H-1B visa
On Tue, 22 Oct 2002 05:21:11 GMT, Ingo Pakleppa
wrote:
>On Mon, 21 Oct 2002 06:23:25 -0700, Tim Keating wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 Oct 2002 08:48:51 -0400, alexy
>> wrote:
>>>Tim Keating wrote:
>>>>On Mon, 21 Oct 2002 11:36:46 GMT, Ingo Pakleppa
>>>>wrote:
>>>>>On Sun, 20 Oct 2002 05:52:56 -0700, Tim Keating wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 20 Oct 2002 06:56:35 GMT, Ingo Pakleppa
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>On Sat, 19 Oct 2002 20:09:10 -0700, Tim Keating wrote:
>>>>>>>by June 30 (75% of the fiscal year 2002), there were 60,500 H-1Bs,
>>>>>>>plus another 18,000 pending.
>>>>>>>The 159,000 include extensions and transfers - that is, it includes
>>>>>>>people who were already in the US as H-1Bs.
>>>>>> Meanwhile the number of visa's approved without any fee exemptions.
>>>>>> -
>>>>>> http://www.ins.gov/graphics/services/employerinfo/H1B_3rdQFY01Rpt.pdf
>>>>>> As a representative sample..
>>>>>> You will notice extensions very small number. 6,489 for 1st ninie(9)
>>>>>> months of FY 2001.
>>>>>The report clearly says that this applies only to SECOND extensions.
>>>>>The
>>>>There are no Second extensions.
>>>My, you are on a roll! According to the INS report you cited:
>>>"Additionally, the INS does not require the fee for certain
>>>administrative reasons. To summarize, these exemptions apply to
>>>employers that are:
>>>• institutions of higher education defined in section 101(a) of the
>>>Higher Education Act of
>>>1965;
>>>• non-profit organizations or entities related to or affiliated with an
>>>institution of higher
>>>education as defined in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of
>>>1965;
>>>• non-profit and Government research organizations; ****************Note
>>>this one************************* • filing a second or subsequent
>>>request for an extension of stay for a particular alien;
>>>*********************************************** ******* • filing an
>>>amended petition without a request to extend the nonimmigrant stay of
>>>the alien
>>>beneficiary;
>>>• filing a petition to correct an INS error; • primary or secondary
>>>education institutions; or • non-profit entities engaging in established
>>>curriculum-related clinical training of students registered at any such
>>>institution.
>>>And from the same document, a table showing exemptions by quarter and by
>>>nature of exemption, we have this line:
>>>Employer is filing a second (or
>>>higher) extension of stay for an
>>>H-1B nonimmigrant 1,806 2,037 2,646 6,489
>>>I believe the fourth number here, which is for the first nine months of
>>>FY01, is the same as the number you were trying to pawn off on the
>>>unsuspecting as the total number of extensions for that period.
>> Since we've found out that a SINGLE I-129 application can be used to
>> bring in MULTIPLE H1-B workers for same position/title/pay. And the
>> fact, that the approved LCA database has an average of 4 jobs (same
>> position/title/pay) per LCA.. One should assume the actual imported
>> head counts would significantly exceed the number of I-129 forms
>> processed.
>That's not true. Each H-1B worker requires a separate I-129. See 8 CFR
>214.2(h)(2)(ii).
Not so..
Under multiple clause.. It only says "May be" and
often refers to named beneficiaries. (plural).
I.E. It's Not an exclusionary statement.
Note: There are more than one Multiple clauses..
Unfortunately .. the omission of a statement/regulation often enables
exploitation. See below..
>Form I-129 is actually used for quite a few classifications: H-1B, H-1C,
>H-2A, H-2B, H-3, L-1A, L-1B, O, P, and I believe also R. That means that
>only a fraction of all I-129s are actually for H-1Bs.
>You are probably referring to using the I-129 for H-1C, H-2A, H-2B and
>H-3, but not H-1B. In that case, the I-129 can indeed cover multiple
>workers. Read the instructions for I-129.
Actually form I-129 instructions (Rev. 12/10/01)Y for Multiple
H1-B's.. (actually six different sub-catagories of H-1B's)
H-1B1, H-1B2, H-1B3, H1-B4, H-1B5, H-1BS
Including attaching a continuation sheet for additional names.
Given the lax enforcement, it would not surprise me if the multiple
definition applied to all of the them!!
Especially when the CFR states nothing about the different
sub-categories.
wrote:
>On Mon, 21 Oct 2002 06:23:25 -0700, Tim Keating wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 Oct 2002 08:48:51 -0400, alexy
>> wrote:
>>>Tim Keating wrote:
>>>>On Mon, 21 Oct 2002 11:36:46 GMT, Ingo Pakleppa
>>>>wrote:
>>>>>On Sun, 20 Oct 2002 05:52:56 -0700, Tim Keating wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 20 Oct 2002 06:56:35 GMT, Ingo Pakleppa
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>On Sat, 19 Oct 2002 20:09:10 -0700, Tim Keating wrote:
>>>>>>>by June 30 (75% of the fiscal year 2002), there were 60,500 H-1Bs,
>>>>>>>plus another 18,000 pending.
>>>>>>>The 159,000 include extensions and transfers - that is, it includes
>>>>>>>people who were already in the US as H-1Bs.
>>>>>> Meanwhile the number of visa's approved without any fee exemptions.
>>>>>> -
>>>>>> http://www.ins.gov/graphics/services/employerinfo/H1B_3rdQFY01Rpt.pdf
>>>>>> As a representative sample..
>>>>>> You will notice extensions very small number. 6,489 for 1st ninie(9)
>>>>>> months of FY 2001.
>>>>>The report clearly says that this applies only to SECOND extensions.
>>>>>The
>>>>There are no Second extensions.
>>>My, you are on a roll! According to the INS report you cited:
>>>"Additionally, the INS does not require the fee for certain
>>>administrative reasons. To summarize, these exemptions apply to
>>>employers that are:
>>>• institutions of higher education defined in section 101(a) of the
>>>Higher Education Act of
>>>1965;
>>>• non-profit organizations or entities related to or affiliated with an
>>>institution of higher
>>>education as defined in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of
>>>1965;
>>>• non-profit and Government research organizations; ****************Note
>>>this one************************* • filing a second or subsequent
>>>request for an extension of stay for a particular alien;
>>>*********************************************** ******* • filing an
>>>amended petition without a request to extend the nonimmigrant stay of
>>>the alien
>>>beneficiary;
>>>• filing a petition to correct an INS error; • primary or secondary
>>>education institutions; or • non-profit entities engaging in established
>>>curriculum-related clinical training of students registered at any such
>>>institution.
>>>And from the same document, a table showing exemptions by quarter and by
>>>nature of exemption, we have this line:
>>>Employer is filing a second (or
>>>higher) extension of stay for an
>>>H-1B nonimmigrant 1,806 2,037 2,646 6,489
>>>I believe the fourth number here, which is for the first nine months of
>>>FY01, is the same as the number you were trying to pawn off on the
>>>unsuspecting as the total number of extensions for that period.
>> Since we've found out that a SINGLE I-129 application can be used to
>> bring in MULTIPLE H1-B workers for same position/title/pay. And the
>> fact, that the approved LCA database has an average of 4 jobs (same
>> position/title/pay) per LCA.. One should assume the actual imported
>> head counts would significantly exceed the number of I-129 forms
>> processed.
>That's not true. Each H-1B worker requires a separate I-129. See 8 CFR
>214.2(h)(2)(ii).
Not so..
Under multiple clause.. It only says "May be" and
often refers to named beneficiaries. (plural).
I.E. It's Not an exclusionary statement.
Note: There are more than one Multiple clauses..
Unfortunately .. the omission of a statement/regulation often enables
exploitation. See below..
>Form I-129 is actually used for quite a few classifications: H-1B, H-1C,
>H-2A, H-2B, H-3, L-1A, L-1B, O, P, and I believe also R. That means that
>only a fraction of all I-129s are actually for H-1Bs.
>You are probably referring to using the I-129 for H-1C, H-2A, H-2B and
>H-3, but not H-1B. In that case, the I-129 can indeed cover multiple
>workers. Read the instructions for I-129.
Actually form I-129 instructions (Rev. 12/10/01)Y for Multiple
H1-B's.. (actually six different sub-catagories of H-1B's)
H-1B1, H-1B2, H-1B3, H1-B4, H-1B5, H-1BS
Including attaching a continuation sheet for additional names.
Given the lax enforcement, it would not surprise me if the multiple
definition applied to all of the them!!
Especially when the CFR states nothing about the different
sub-categories.
Oct 22nd 2002, 3:39 pm
#98
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2002 Congressional Elections and the H-1B visa
"Carlos Antunes" wrote:
>I don't think you dispute the idea that most legal immigrants are
>law-abiding. The INS is supposed to perform background checks on every
>person wishing to immigrate here. Note that temporary workers
>(non-immigrants) don't go through all this checking.
The INS doesn't work. And I do believe that most people who bust their
butts getting to the U.S. want to be law-abiding.
The body shop in charge of temps is supposed to do the checking for
skills, background, etc.
>I have trouble understanding the "full of people already" argument. Relative
>to what?
Have you visited Manhattan lately? Kidding aside, we have serious
problems with hospitals closing services because of indigent care
(that's their excuse, anyway), not enough police, overcrouded schools.
Relative to what? What I saw 30 or 35 years ago compared to now.
>In any case, I don't think politicians should limit who
>corporations may hire. Politicians usually have too much power but not
>enough brains.
Oh, they are smart like a snake has instincts. They speak with forked
tongue, for sure. I don't care who corporations hire, but I don't want
the tax money taken from my friggin unemployment check to provide
corporate welfare and subsidize these people relocating out of the
U.S. They could all go to India for all I care, but at their own
expense.
>By the way, corporations are supposed to always do what is best for them.
>That's why they exist. I also have trouble understanding your "stabbed in
>the back by corporations". Unless the corporations promised you something,
>they really owe you nothing.
Then they (like schools, certification pushers like Sun and M$, etc)
shouldn't lie to us and take our money for getting education to work
in a field we have hardly a chance of getting into. So you could say
corporation promise us success (like "Oracle University") and we end
up in debt with a job at K-Mart (which is also going under). Our
government is losing a lot of tax revenue as well. When that finally
bites the politicians in the butts you can be damn sure they will not
let corporations do what's in the corporations' best interest.
>Regarding being "stabbed in the back" by politicians, what were you
>expecting?
Ummm...not having to dig my own grave first.
> wrote in message
> news:3tm8ruk1vk7gcp3u3mdicn-
> [email protected] ...
>> Yeah, that would be great if we already weren't so full of people and
>> if we knew beforehand that people would be law-abiding. With all due
>> respect, I don't know about you but my entire life I went through the
>> education system here in the U.S., went to college, had 1.5 children
>> , joined the military, etc. I was raised by my parents and the
>> school system in preparation for the workplace. I did everything I was
>> "supposed" to do. Then I can't get a job for weeks or months at a time
>> because foreigners have the jobs. It's not jealousy, sour grapes, or
>> just plain meanness. It's a cultural thing. We assimilated into
>> American culture and then get stabbed in the back by corporations and
>> our elected officials.
>I don't think you dispute the idea that most legal immigrants are
>law-abiding. The INS is supposed to perform background checks on every
>person wishing to immigrate here. Note that temporary workers
>(non-immigrants) don't go through all this checking.
The INS doesn't work. And I do believe that most people who bust their
butts getting to the U.S. want to be law-abiding.
The body shop in charge of temps is supposed to do the checking for
skills, background, etc.
>I have trouble understanding the "full of people already" argument. Relative
>to what?
Have you visited Manhattan lately? Kidding aside, we have serious
problems with hospitals closing services because of indigent care
(that's their excuse, anyway), not enough police, overcrouded schools.
Relative to what? What I saw 30 or 35 years ago compared to now.
>In any case, I don't think politicians should limit who
>corporations may hire. Politicians usually have too much power but not
>enough brains.
Oh, they are smart like a snake has instincts. They speak with forked
tongue, for sure. I don't care who corporations hire, but I don't want
the tax money taken from my friggin unemployment check to provide
corporate welfare and subsidize these people relocating out of the
U.S. They could all go to India for all I care, but at their own
expense.
>By the way, corporations are supposed to always do what is best for them.
>That's why they exist. I also have trouble understanding your "stabbed in
>the back by corporations". Unless the corporations promised you something,
>they really owe you nothing.
Then they (like schools, certification pushers like Sun and M$, etc)
shouldn't lie to us and take our money for getting education to work
in a field we have hardly a chance of getting into. So you could say
corporation promise us success (like "Oracle University") and we end
up in debt with a job at K-Mart (which is also going under). Our
government is losing a lot of tax revenue as well. When that finally
bites the politicians in the butts you can be damn sure they will not
let corporations do what's in the corporations' best interest.
>Regarding being "stabbed in the back" by politicians, what were you
>expecting?
Ummm...not having to dig my own grave first.
> wrote in message
> news:3tm8ruk1vk7gcp3u3mdicn-
> [email protected] ...
>> Yeah, that would be great if we already weren't so full of people and
>> if we knew beforehand that people would be law-abiding. With all due
>> respect, I don't know about you but my entire life I went through the
>> education system here in the U.S., went to college, had 1.5 children
>>
, joined the military, etc. I was raised by my parents and the>> school system in preparation for the workplace. I did everything I was
>> "supposed" to do. Then I can't get a job for weeks or months at a time
>> because foreigners have the jobs. It's not jealousy, sour grapes, or
>> just plain meanness. It's a cultural thing. We assimilated into
>> American culture and then get stabbed in the back by corporations and
>> our elected officials.
Oct 22nd 2002, 3:58 pm
#99
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2002 Congressional Elections and the H-1B visa
wrote in message
news:igraru4gun4r7v3rv1ld9up-
[email protected]...
> Have you visited Manhattan lately? Kidding aside, we have serious
> problems with hospitals closing services because of indigent care
> (that's their excuse, anyway), not enough police, overcrouded schools.
> Relative to what? What I saw 30 or 35 years ago compared to now.
Big cities tend to grow larger. They have this magnetic effect on people.
This would happen with or without immigration.
> Oh, they are smart like a snake has instincts. They speak with forked
> tongue, for sure. I don't care who corporations hire, but I don't want
> the tax money taken from my friggin unemployment check to provide
> corporate welfare and subsidize these people relocating out of the
> U.S. They could all go to India for all I care, but at their own
> expense.
I'm against welfare, corporate or individual. In my opinion, no one should
live or do anything at other people's expense. This view is only supported
by a minority of people, though.
> Then they (like schools, certification pushers like Sun and M$, etc)
> shouldn't lie to us and take our money for getting education to work
> in a field we have hardly a chance of getting into.
Well, I'm no fan of certifications. They are too specific and definitely too
dangerous because the tide ends up always changing.
> So you could say corporation promise us success (like "Oracle University")
> and we end up in debt with a job at K-Mart (which is also going under).
I guess you learned your lesson, then: don't trust anyone except yourself.
If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
> Our government is losing a lot of tax revenue as well. When that finally
> bites the politicians in the butts you can be damn sure they will not
> let corporations do what's in the corporations' best interest.
Which will certainly cause more problems to the average citizen. Politicians
generaly have a way to screw things up even more. Don't ever think they will
help solve any of your problems. They will be happy to get your vote and tax
you to death, though.
By the way, just a general piece of advice. If you want to make lots of
money, forget "technical jobs". The are quickly turning into "blue collar
work" of the 21st century.
Regards,
Carlos Antunes.
news:igraru4gun4r7v3rv1ld9up-
[email protected]...
> Have you visited Manhattan lately? Kidding aside, we have serious
> problems with hospitals closing services because of indigent care
> (that's their excuse, anyway), not enough police, overcrouded schools.
> Relative to what? What I saw 30 or 35 years ago compared to now.
Big cities tend to grow larger. They have this magnetic effect on people.
This would happen with or without immigration.
> Oh, they are smart like a snake has instincts. They speak with forked
> tongue, for sure. I don't care who corporations hire, but I don't want
> the tax money taken from my friggin unemployment check to provide
> corporate welfare and subsidize these people relocating out of the
> U.S. They could all go to India for all I care, but at their own
> expense.
I'm against welfare, corporate or individual. In my opinion, no one should
live or do anything at other people's expense. This view is only supported
by a minority of people, though.
> Then they (like schools, certification pushers like Sun and M$, etc)
> shouldn't lie to us and take our money for getting education to work
> in a field we have hardly a chance of getting into.
Well, I'm no fan of certifications. They are too specific and definitely too
dangerous because the tide ends up always changing.
> So you could say corporation promise us success (like "Oracle University")
> and we end up in debt with a job at K-Mart (which is also going under).
I guess you learned your lesson, then: don't trust anyone except yourself.
If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
> Our government is losing a lot of tax revenue as well. When that finally
> bites the politicians in the butts you can be damn sure they will not
> let corporations do what's in the corporations' best interest.
Which will certainly cause more problems to the average citizen. Politicians
generaly have a way to screw things up even more. Don't ever think they will
help solve any of your problems. They will be happy to get your vote and tax
you to death, though.
By the way, just a general piece of advice. If you want to make lots of
money, forget "technical jobs". The are quickly turning into "blue collar
work" of the 21st century.
Regards,
Carlos Antunes.
Oct 22nd 2002, 6:49 pm
#100
Guest
Posts: n/a
Crowding...and who causes it. Was: Re: 2002 Congressional Elections
On Tue, 22 Oct 2002, Carlos Antunes wrote:
> wrote in message
> news:igraru4gun4r7v3rv1ld9-
> [email protected] ...
> >
> > Have you visited Manhattan lately? Kidding aside, we have serious
> > problems with hospitals closing services because of indigent care
> > (that's their excuse, anyway), not enough police, overcrouded schools.
> > Relative to what? What I saw 30 or 35 years ago compared to now.
> >
> Big cities tend to grow larger. They have this magnetic effect on people.
> This would happen with or without immigration.
All of our USA problems are getting worse. Trade deficit, health insurance
premiums, and expansion of poverty housing. I live in a non-big city area
in southern Delaware and the nearest town has a population of about 2500
and they all say half of that is foreigners/immigrants. Nearly 100%
Hispanic. They work in the chicken processing plants. eg. Perdue, Allen,
Townsend. They are paid $7-8/hour and they survive by putting 3-4 families
in a house meant (by now obsolete but quaint) for one family. All these
houses are in neighborhoods that are going down hill, generate extra
garbage for the refuse collectors, and the local police -- when I ask them
-- tell me more trouble comes from these parts of town (because of
density, more fights take place, etc.). Many send money back where they
came from, so it adds to the "trade deficit" (article in Wired magazine
earlier this year says 11% of Phillipine island national budget is made up
of Phillipinos working in other countries sending back bucks. Same in
Mexico; substantial part of economy comes from bucks mailed back from the
USA. It all adds up. Big business doesn't care as long as their bottom
line is fine and executives get obscene bonuses (or do
Enronism/Andersenism and dip for extra bucks by smoke & mirror accounting).
These are all bad trends and I don't see many good trends (eg. cleaner
air? getting the lead out of paint/gas?). Medical
advances don't do you any good if you don't have a health plan, and even
if you do, you might not get health out of it.
> >
> > Oh, they are smart like a snake has instincts. They speak with forked
> > tongue, for sure. I don't care who corporations hire, but I don't want
> > the tax money taken from my friggin unemployment check to provide
> > corporate welfare and subsidize these people relocating out of the
> > U.S. They could all go to India for all I care, but at their own
> > expense.
> >
> I'm against welfare, corporate or individual. In my opinion, no one should
> live or do anything at other people's expense.
Insurance plans (private industry) and social security....are they bad?
This view is only supported
> by a minority of people, though.
> >
> > Then they (like schools, certification pushers like Sun and M$, etc)
> > shouldn't lie to us and take our money for getting education to work
> > in a field we have hardly a chance of getting into.
> >
> Well, I'm no fan of certifications. They are too specific and definitely too
> dangerous because the tide ends up always changing.
> >
> > So you could say corporation promise us success (like "Oracle University")
> > and we end up in debt with a job at K-Mart (which is also going under).
> >
> I guess you learned your lesson, then: don't trust anyone except yourself.
> If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
> >
> > Our government is losing a lot of tax revenue as well. When that finally
> > bites the politicians in the butts you can be damn sure they will not
> > let corporations do what's in the corporations' best interest.
> >
> Which will certainly cause more problems to the average citizen. Politicians
> generaly have a way to screw things up even more. Don't ever think they will
> help solve any of your problems. They will be happy to get your vote and tax
> you to death, though.
And, let big business give them "bribes" but call them campaign
contributions.
> By the way, just a general piece of advice. If you want to make lots of
> money, forget "technical jobs". The are quickly turning into "blue collar
> work" of the 21st century.
Science jobs, too. Jobs are turning into temp positions, and in colleges
and universities, faculty are being hired on adjunct appointments and paid
less, often with no fringe benefits, no job security, even no office.
Arthur E. Sowers, PhD
-----------------------------------------
| Science career information website: |
| [url="http://www.magpage.com/~arthures"]http://www.magpage.com/~arthures[/ur-
| l] |
-----------------------------------------
> Regards,
> Carlos Antunes.
> wrote in message
> news:igraru4gun4r7v3rv1ld9-
> [email protected] ...
> >
> > Have you visited Manhattan lately? Kidding aside, we have serious
> > problems with hospitals closing services because of indigent care
> > (that's their excuse, anyway), not enough police, overcrouded schools.
> > Relative to what? What I saw 30 or 35 years ago compared to now.
> >
> Big cities tend to grow larger. They have this magnetic effect on people.
> This would happen with or without immigration.
All of our USA problems are getting worse. Trade deficit, health insurance
premiums, and expansion of poverty housing. I live in a non-big city area
in southern Delaware and the nearest town has a population of about 2500
and they all say half of that is foreigners/immigrants. Nearly 100%
Hispanic. They work in the chicken processing plants. eg. Perdue, Allen,
Townsend. They are paid $7-8/hour and they survive by putting 3-4 families
in a house meant (by now obsolete but quaint) for one family. All these
houses are in neighborhoods that are going down hill, generate extra
garbage for the refuse collectors, and the local police -- when I ask them
-- tell me more trouble comes from these parts of town (because of
density, more fights take place, etc.). Many send money back where they
came from, so it adds to the "trade deficit" (article in Wired magazine
earlier this year says 11% of Phillipine island national budget is made up
of Phillipinos working in other countries sending back bucks. Same in
Mexico; substantial part of economy comes from bucks mailed back from the
USA. It all adds up. Big business doesn't care as long as their bottom
line is fine and executives get obscene bonuses (or do
Enronism/Andersenism and dip for extra bucks by smoke & mirror accounting).
These are all bad trends and I don't see many good trends (eg. cleaner
air? getting the lead out of paint/gas?). Medical
advances don't do you any good if you don't have a health plan, and even
if you do, you might not get health out of it.
> >
> > Oh, they are smart like a snake has instincts. They speak with forked
> > tongue, for sure. I don't care who corporations hire, but I don't want
> > the tax money taken from my friggin unemployment check to provide
> > corporate welfare and subsidize these people relocating out of the
> > U.S. They could all go to India for all I care, but at their own
> > expense.
> >
> I'm against welfare, corporate or individual. In my opinion, no one should
> live or do anything at other people's expense.
Insurance plans (private industry) and social security....are they bad?
This view is only supported
> by a minority of people, though.
> >
> > Then they (like schools, certification pushers like Sun and M$, etc)
> > shouldn't lie to us and take our money for getting education to work
> > in a field we have hardly a chance of getting into.
> >
> Well, I'm no fan of certifications. They are too specific and definitely too
> dangerous because the tide ends up always changing.
> >
> > So you could say corporation promise us success (like "Oracle University")
> > and we end up in debt with a job at K-Mart (which is also going under).
> >
> I guess you learned your lesson, then: don't trust anyone except yourself.
> If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
> >
> > Our government is losing a lot of tax revenue as well. When that finally
> > bites the politicians in the butts you can be damn sure they will not
> > let corporations do what's in the corporations' best interest.
> >
> Which will certainly cause more problems to the average citizen. Politicians
> generaly have a way to screw things up even more. Don't ever think they will
> help solve any of your problems. They will be happy to get your vote and tax
> you to death, though.
And, let big business give them "bribes" but call them campaign
contributions.
> By the way, just a general piece of advice. If you want to make lots of
> money, forget "technical jobs". The are quickly turning into "blue collar
> work" of the 21st century.
Science jobs, too. Jobs are turning into temp positions, and in colleges
and universities, faculty are being hired on adjunct appointments and paid
less, often with no fringe benefits, no job security, even no office.
Arthur E. Sowers, PhD
-----------------------------------------
| Science career information website: |
| [url="http://www.magpage.com/~arthures"]http://www.magpage.com/~arthures[/ur-
| l] |
-----------------------------------------
> Regards,
> Carlos Antunes.
Oct 22nd 2002, 8:08 pm
#101
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2002 Congressional Elections and the H-1B visa
On Tue, 22 Oct 2002 06:07:42 -0700, Tim Keating wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Oct 2002 05:21:11 GMT, Ingo Pakleppa
> wrote:
>>On Mon, 21 Oct 2002 06:23:25 -0700, Tim Keating wrote:
>>> On Mon, 21 Oct 2002 08:48:51 -0400, alexy
>>> wrote:
>>>>Tim Keating wrote:
>>>>>On Mon, 21 Oct 2002 11:36:46 GMT, Ingo Pakleppa
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>On Sun, 20 Oct 2002 05:52:56 -0700, Tim Keating wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 20 Oct 2002 06:56:35 GMT, Ingo Pakleppa
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>On Sat, 19 Oct 2002 20:09:10 -0700, Tim Keating wrote:
>>>>>>>>by June 30 (75% of the fiscal year 2002), there were 60,500 H-1Bs,
>>>>>>>>plus another 18,000 pending.
>>>>>>>>The 159,000 include extensions and transfers - that is, it
>>>>>>>>includes people who were already in the US as H-1Bs.
>>>>>>> Meanwhile the number of visa's approved without any fee
>>>>>>> exemptions.
[q3]>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ]http://www.ins.gov/graphics/services/employerinfo/H1B_3rdQFY01Rpt.pdf
>>>>>>> As a representative sample..
>>>>>>> You will notice extensions very small number. 6,489 for 1st
>>>>>>> ninie(9) months of FY 2001.
>>>>>>The report clearly says that this applies only to SECOND extensions.
>>>>>>The
>>>>>There are no Second extensions.
>>>>My, you are on a roll! According to the INS report you cited:
>>>>"Additionally, the INS does not require the fee for certain
>>>>administrative reasons. To summarize, these exemptions apply to
>>>>employers that are:
>>>>• institutions of higher education defined in section 101(a) of the
>>>>Higher Education Act of
>>>>1965;
>>>>• non-profit organizations or entities related to or affiliated with
>>>>an institution of higher
>>>>education as defined in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of
>>>>1965;
>>>>• non-profit and Government research organizations;
>>>>****************Note this one************************* • filing a
>>>>second or subsequent request for an extension of stay for a particular
>>>>alien; ************************************************** **** • filing
>>>>an amended petition without a request to extend the nonimmigrant stay
>>>>of the alien
>>>>beneficiary;
>>>>• filing a petition to correct an INS error; • primary or secondary
>>>>education institutions; or • non-profit entities engaging in
>>>>established curriculum-related clinical training of students
>>>>registered at any such institution.
>>>>And from the same document, a table showing exemptions by quarter and
>>>>by nature of exemption, we have this line:
>>>>Employer is filing a second (or
>>>>higher) extension of stay for an
>>>>H-1B nonimmigrant 1,806 2,037 2,646 6,489
>>>>I believe the fourth number here, which is for the first nine months
>>>>of FY01, is the same as the number you were trying to pawn off on the
>>>>unsuspecting as the total number of extensions for that period.
>>> Since we've found out that a SINGLE I-129 application can be used to
>>> bring in MULTIPLE H1-B workers for same position/title/pay. And the
>>> fact, that the approved LCA database has an average of 4 jobs (same
>>> position/title/pay) per LCA.. One should assume the actual imported
>>> head counts would significantly exceed the number of I-129 forms
>>> processed.
>>That's not true. Each H-1B worker requires a separate I-129. See 8 CFR
>>214.2(h)(2)(ii).
> Not so..
> Under multiple clause.. It only says "May be" and
> often refers to named beneficiaries. (plural). I.E. It's Not an
> exclusionary statement.
> Note: There are more than one Multiple clauses..
> Unfortunately .. the omission of a statement/regulation often enables
> exploitation. See below..
So, what clause have you been looking at that would allow multiple
beneficiaries of an H-1B petition?
>>Form I-129 is actually used for quite a few classifications: H-1B, H-1C,
>>H-2A, H-2B, H-3, L-1A, L-1B, O, P, and I believe also R. That means that
>>only a fraction of all I-129s are actually for H-1Bs.
>>You are probably referring to using the I-129 for H-1C, H-2A, H-2B and
>>H-3, but not H-1B. In that case, the I-129 can indeed cover multiple
>>workers. Read the instructions for I-129.
> Actually form I-129 instructions (Rev. 12/10/01)Y for Multiple H1-B's..
> (actually six different sub-catagories of H-1B's)
> H-1B1, H-1B2, H-1B3, H1-B4, H-1B5, H-1BS
> Including attaching a continuation sheet for additional names.
INS has done a really poor job of updating the instructions. Most of these
classifications have long since been replaced by different types of visa
(and that was actually long before the instructions were revised; they
must have just updated the fee information and not much else). Most
specifically, H-1Bs are no longer used for artists, entertainers or
athletes (because an H-1B today requires a college degree, except for
fashion models). The only situation that at some point in the past allowed
multiple beneficiaries was for choirs, orchestras or the like - not for
random groups of beneficiaries.
Today, artists, entertainers and athletes use the P visa instead.
The only classifications of H-1B that are actually in practical use are
H-1B1 (your run-of-the-mill H-1B), H-1B2 (rare, for defense projects), and
H-1B3 (for fashion models only). None of these allow multiple
beneficiaries (fashion models do not come in groups, but are individuals
and have to be petitioned as such).
> On Tue, 22 Oct 2002 05:21:11 GMT, Ingo Pakleppa
> wrote:
>>On Mon, 21 Oct 2002 06:23:25 -0700, Tim Keating wrote:
>>> On Mon, 21 Oct 2002 08:48:51 -0400, alexy
>>> wrote:
>>>>Tim Keating wrote:
>>>>>On Mon, 21 Oct 2002 11:36:46 GMT, Ingo Pakleppa
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>On Sun, 20 Oct 2002 05:52:56 -0700, Tim Keating wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 20 Oct 2002 06:56:35 GMT, Ingo Pakleppa
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>On Sat, 19 Oct 2002 20:09:10 -0700, Tim Keating wrote:
>>>>>>>>by June 30 (75% of the fiscal year 2002), there were 60,500 H-1Bs,
>>>>>>>>plus another 18,000 pending.
>>>>>>>>The 159,000 include extensions and transfers - that is, it
>>>>>>>>includes people who were already in the US as H-1Bs.
>>>>>>> Meanwhile the number of visa's approved without any fee
>>>>>>> exemptions.
[q3]>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ]http://www.ins.gov/graphics/services/employerinfo/H1B_3rdQFY01Rpt.pdf
>>>>>>> As a representative sample..
>>>>>>> You will notice extensions very small number. 6,489 for 1st
>>>>>>> ninie(9) months of FY 2001.
>>>>>>The report clearly says that this applies only to SECOND extensions.
>>>>>>The
>>>>>There are no Second extensions.
>>>>My, you are on a roll! According to the INS report you cited:
>>>>"Additionally, the INS does not require the fee for certain
>>>>administrative reasons. To summarize, these exemptions apply to
>>>>employers that are:
>>>>• institutions of higher education defined in section 101(a) of the
>>>>Higher Education Act of
>>>>1965;
>>>>• non-profit organizations or entities related to or affiliated with
>>>>an institution of higher
>>>>education as defined in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of
>>>>1965;
>>>>• non-profit and Government research organizations;
>>>>****************Note this one************************* • filing a
>>>>second or subsequent request for an extension of stay for a particular
>>>>alien; ************************************************** **** • filing
>>>>an amended petition without a request to extend the nonimmigrant stay
>>>>of the alien
>>>>beneficiary;
>>>>• filing a petition to correct an INS error; • primary or secondary
>>>>education institutions; or • non-profit entities engaging in
>>>>established curriculum-related clinical training of students
>>>>registered at any such institution.
>>>>And from the same document, a table showing exemptions by quarter and
>>>>by nature of exemption, we have this line:
>>>>Employer is filing a second (or
>>>>higher) extension of stay for an
>>>>H-1B nonimmigrant 1,806 2,037 2,646 6,489
>>>>I believe the fourth number here, which is for the first nine months
>>>>of FY01, is the same as the number you were trying to pawn off on the
>>>>unsuspecting as the total number of extensions for that period.
>>> Since we've found out that a SINGLE I-129 application can be used to
>>> bring in MULTIPLE H1-B workers for same position/title/pay. And the
>>> fact, that the approved LCA database has an average of 4 jobs (same
>>> position/title/pay) per LCA.. One should assume the actual imported
>>> head counts would significantly exceed the number of I-129 forms
>>> processed.
>>That's not true. Each H-1B worker requires a separate I-129. See 8 CFR
>>214.2(h)(2)(ii).
> Not so..
> Under multiple clause.. It only says "May be" and
> often refers to named beneficiaries. (plural). I.E. It's Not an
> exclusionary statement.
> Note: There are more than one Multiple clauses..
> Unfortunately .. the omission of a statement/regulation often enables
> exploitation. See below..
So, what clause have you been looking at that would allow multiple
beneficiaries of an H-1B petition?
>>Form I-129 is actually used for quite a few classifications: H-1B, H-1C,
>>H-2A, H-2B, H-3, L-1A, L-1B, O, P, and I believe also R. That means that
>>only a fraction of all I-129s are actually for H-1Bs.
>>You are probably referring to using the I-129 for H-1C, H-2A, H-2B and
>>H-3, but not H-1B. In that case, the I-129 can indeed cover multiple
>>workers. Read the instructions for I-129.
> Actually form I-129 instructions (Rev. 12/10/01)Y for Multiple H1-B's..
> (actually six different sub-catagories of H-1B's)
> H-1B1, H-1B2, H-1B3, H1-B4, H-1B5, H-1BS
> Including attaching a continuation sheet for additional names.
INS has done a really poor job of updating the instructions. Most of these
classifications have long since been replaced by different types of visa
(and that was actually long before the instructions were revised; they
must have just updated the fee information and not much else). Most
specifically, H-1Bs are no longer used for artists, entertainers or
athletes (because an H-1B today requires a college degree, except for
fashion models). The only situation that at some point in the past allowed
multiple beneficiaries was for choirs, orchestras or the like - not for
random groups of beneficiaries.
Today, artists, entertainers and athletes use the P visa instead.
The only classifications of H-1B that are actually in practical use are
H-1B1 (your run-of-the-mill H-1B), H-1B2 (rare, for defense projects), and
H-1B3 (for fashion models only). None of these allow multiple
beneficiaries (fashion models do not come in groups, but are individuals
and have to be petitioned as such).
Oct 22nd 2002, 8:43 pm
#102
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 2002 Congressional Elections and the H-1B visa
Ingo Pakleppa wrote:
>INS has done a really poor job of updating the instructions. Most of these
>classifications have long since been replaced by different types of visa
>(and that was actually long before the instructions were revised; they
>must have just updated the fee information and not much else). Most
>specifically, H-1Bs are no longer used for artists, entertainers or
>athletes (because an H-1B today requires a college degree, except for
>fashion models). The only situation that at some point in the past allowed
>multiple beneficiaries was for choirs, orchestras or the like - not for
>random groups of beneficiaries.
>Today, artists, entertainers and athletes use the P visa instead.
Didn't know that...
>The only classifications of H-1B that are actually in practical use are
>H-1B1 (your run-of-the-mill H-1B), H-1B2 (rare, for defense projects), and
>H-1B3 (for fashion models only). None of these allow multiple
>beneficiaries (fashion models do not come in groups, but are individuals
>and have to be petitioned as such).
Thanks for contributing to this discussion. It's nice to have someone
posting about the INS who sounds like they actually know something!
--
Alex
Make the obvious change in the return address to reply by email.
>INS has done a really poor job of updating the instructions. Most of these
>classifications have long since been replaced by different types of visa
>(and that was actually long before the instructions were revised; they
>must have just updated the fee information and not much else). Most
>specifically, H-1Bs are no longer used for artists, entertainers or
>athletes (because an H-1B today requires a college degree, except for
>fashion models). The only situation that at some point in the past allowed
>multiple beneficiaries was for choirs, orchestras or the like - not for
>random groups of beneficiaries.
>Today, artists, entertainers and athletes use the P visa instead.
Didn't know that...
>The only classifications of H-1B that are actually in practical use are
>H-1B1 (your run-of-the-mill H-1B), H-1B2 (rare, for defense projects), and
>H-1B3 (for fashion models only). None of these allow multiple
>beneficiaries (fashion models do not come in groups, but are individuals
>and have to be petitioned as such).
Thanks for contributing to this discussion. It's nice to have someone
posting about the INS who sounds like they actually know something!
--
Alex
Make the obvious change in the return address to reply by email.
Oct 22nd 2002, 10:24 pm
#103
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Crowding...and who causes it. Was: Re: 2002 Congressional Elections and the H-1B visa
"Arthur E. Sowers" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> All of our USA problems are getting worse.
Hmm, from a macro perspective, I honestly don't see that. But let's examine
your claims one by one.
> Trade deficit
Trade deficit is not necessarly a bad thing. What it basically means is that
other countries send lots of different goods to the US while the US sends
back paper. Not only does the US get these goods in exchange for paper but
it gets to conserve its own natural resources for the future.
> health insurance premiums
The secret here is to choose catastrophic coverage only, meaning high
deductibles and lower premiums.
> expansion of poverty housing
This is welfare and I oppose it.
> I live in a non-big city area in southern Delaware and the nearest town
has
> a population of about 2500 and they all say half of that is
foreigners/immigrants.
> Nearly 100% Hispanic.
This is not necessarly a bad thing per se.
> They work in the chicken processing plants. eg. Perdue, Allen,
> Townsend. They are paid $7-8/hour and they survive by putting 3-4 families
> in a house meant (by now obsolete but quaint) for one family.
There is obviously demand for this kind of work at these rates. And those
hispanics seem happy to get those jobs. It certainly benefots many, many
consumers in the US who get chicken for less.
> All these houses are in neighborhoods that are going down hill, generate
extra
> garbage for the refuse collectors, and the local police -- when I ask them
> -- tell me more trouble comes from these parts of town (because of
> density, more fights take place, etc.).
Yes, I agree. It would probably better to send these factories abroad. Of
course, this would increase the trade deficit even more but that is not
necessarily a bad thing, as I explained before.
> Big business doesn't care as long as their bottom
> line is fine and executives get obscene bonuses (or do
> Enronism/Andersenism and dip for extra bucks by smoke & mirror
accounting).
As long as businesses, big or not, respect the Law, I expect them to do
everything at their disposal to increase the bottomline. That's why they
exist, after all.
> These are all bad trends and I don't see many good trends (eg. cleaner
> air? getting the lead out of paint/gas?). Medical
> advances don't do you any good if you don't have a health plan, and even
> if you do, you might not get health out of it.
Overall, people are living wealthier and healthier lives, compared to a
century ago. That qualifies as a good trend, in my opinion.
> > I'm against welfare, corporate or individual. In my opinion, no one
should
> > live or do anything at other people's expense.
> Insurance plans (private industry) and social security....are they bad?
Welfare is when the paxpayer is forced to foot the bill to pay for other
people's expenses. Social security is technically not welfare although I
would prefer to see the Government out of the loop with fully self-directed
retirement accounts.
> And, let big business give them "bribes" but call them campaign
> contributions.
Yeap. That's why I advocate a total separation of the Economy and State.
Regards,
Carlos Antunes.
news:[email protected]...
> All of our USA problems are getting worse.
Hmm, from a macro perspective, I honestly don't see that. But let's examine
your claims one by one.
> Trade deficit
Trade deficit is not necessarly a bad thing. What it basically means is that
other countries send lots of different goods to the US while the US sends
back paper. Not only does the US get these goods in exchange for paper but
it gets to conserve its own natural resources for the future.
> health insurance premiums
The secret here is to choose catastrophic coverage only, meaning high
deductibles and lower premiums.
> expansion of poverty housing
This is welfare and I oppose it.
> I live in a non-big city area in southern Delaware and the nearest town
has
> a population of about 2500 and they all say half of that is
foreigners/immigrants.
> Nearly 100% Hispanic.
This is not necessarly a bad thing per se.
> They work in the chicken processing plants. eg. Perdue, Allen,
> Townsend. They are paid $7-8/hour and they survive by putting 3-4 families
> in a house meant (by now obsolete but quaint) for one family.
There is obviously demand for this kind of work at these rates. And those
hispanics seem happy to get those jobs. It certainly benefots many, many
consumers in the US who get chicken for less.
> All these houses are in neighborhoods that are going down hill, generate
extra
> garbage for the refuse collectors, and the local police -- when I ask them
> -- tell me more trouble comes from these parts of town (because of
> density, more fights take place, etc.).
Yes, I agree. It would probably better to send these factories abroad. Of
course, this would increase the trade deficit even more but that is not
necessarily a bad thing, as I explained before.
> Big business doesn't care as long as their bottom
> line is fine and executives get obscene bonuses (or do
> Enronism/Andersenism and dip for extra bucks by smoke & mirror
accounting).
As long as businesses, big or not, respect the Law, I expect them to do
everything at their disposal to increase the bottomline. That's why they
exist, after all.
> These are all bad trends and I don't see many good trends (eg. cleaner
> air? getting the lead out of paint/gas?). Medical
> advances don't do you any good if you don't have a health plan, and even
> if you do, you might not get health out of it.
Overall, people are living wealthier and healthier lives, compared to a
century ago. That qualifies as a good trend, in my opinion.
> > I'm against welfare, corporate or individual. In my opinion, no one
should
> > live or do anything at other people's expense.
> Insurance plans (private industry) and social security....are they bad?
Welfare is when the paxpayer is forced to foot the bill to pay for other
people's expenses. Social security is technically not welfare although I
would prefer to see the Government out of the loop with fully self-directed
retirement accounts.
> And, let big business give them "bribes" but call them campaign
> contributions.
Yeap. That's why I advocate a total separation of the Economy and State.
Regards,
Carlos Antunes.
Oct 23rd 2002, 12:01 am
#104
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Crowding...and who causes it. Was: Re: 2002 Congressional Elections
Carlos Antunes wrote:
> "Arthur E. Sowers" wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>All of our USA problems are getting worse.
> Hmm, from a macro perspective, I honestly don't see that. But let's examine
> your claims one by one.
>>Trade deficit
> Trade deficit is not necessarly a bad thing. What it basically means is that
> other countries send lots of different goods to the US while the US sends
> back paper. Not only does the US get these goods in exchange for paper but
> it gets to conserve its own natural resources for the future.
>>health insurance premiums
> The secret here is to choose catastrophic coverage only, meaning high
> deductibles and lower premiums.
>>expansion of poverty housing
> This is welfare and I oppose it.
>>I live in a non-big city area in southern Delaware and the nearest town
> has
>>a population of about 2500 and they all say half of that is
> foreigners/immigrants.
>>Nearly 100% Hispanic.
> This is not necessarly a bad thing per se.
>>They work in the chicken processing plants. eg. Perdue, Allen,
>>Townsend. They are paid $7-8/hour and they survive by putting 3-4 families
>>in a house meant (by now obsolete but quaint) for one family.
> There is obviously demand for this kind of work at these rates. And those
> hispanics seem happy to get those jobs. It certainly benefots many, many
> consumers in the US who get chicken for less.
> Regards,
> Carlos Antunes.
No one gets anything for less. The company gets more money,the people
pay the same ammount for the product.
--
Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from
the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government
becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to
alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its
foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form,
as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and
happiness.-Thomas Jefferson
> "Arthur E. Sowers" wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>All of our USA problems are getting worse.
> Hmm, from a macro perspective, I honestly don't see that. But let's examine
> your claims one by one.
>>Trade deficit
> Trade deficit is not necessarly a bad thing. What it basically means is that
> other countries send lots of different goods to the US while the US sends
> back paper. Not only does the US get these goods in exchange for paper but
> it gets to conserve its own natural resources for the future.
>>health insurance premiums
> The secret here is to choose catastrophic coverage only, meaning high
> deductibles and lower premiums.
>>expansion of poverty housing
> This is welfare and I oppose it.
>>I live in a non-big city area in southern Delaware and the nearest town
> has
>>a population of about 2500 and they all say half of that is
> foreigners/immigrants.
>>Nearly 100% Hispanic.
> This is not necessarly a bad thing per se.
>>They work in the chicken processing plants. eg. Perdue, Allen,
>>Townsend. They are paid $7-8/hour and they survive by putting 3-4 families
>>in a house meant (by now obsolete but quaint) for one family.
> There is obviously demand for this kind of work at these rates. And those
> hispanics seem happy to get those jobs. It certainly benefots many, many
> consumers in the US who get chicken for less.
> Regards,
> Carlos Antunes.
No one gets anything for less. The company gets more money,the people
pay the same ammount for the product.
--
Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from
the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government
becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to
alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its
foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form,
as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and
happiness.-Thomas Jefferson
Oct 23rd 2002, 12:32 am
#105
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Crowding...and who causes it. Was: Re: 2002 Congressional Elections and the H-1B visa
wrote in message news:qult9.387$bS5-
[email protected]...
> No one gets anything for less. The company gets more money,the people
> pay the same ammount for the product.
In that case the shareholders benefit, which is the idea in the first place.
I don't anything wrong with that, quite the opposite.
Regards,
Carlos Antunes.
[email protected]...
> No one gets anything for less. The company gets more money,the people
> pay the same ammount for the product.
In that case the shareholders benefit, which is the idea in the first place.
I don't anything wrong with that, quite the opposite.
Regards,
Carlos Antunes.